# Who can swear in a US President? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 10, 2018, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394 "2018-08-10T16:38:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2018, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/21 "2018-08-11T21:10:21Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > There are all sorts of federal laws concerning oaths, and who may administer them, but none specifically address the President, and some of them specifically exempt the President. > > Here is [the present oath for civil service employees](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331), which specifically does not apply to the President, and the law on [who may administer it](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2903). > > Here is federal law on [judges’ oaths](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453), which doesn’t say who may administer, but adds [later on](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/459), “Each justice or judge of the United States may administer oaths and affirmations and take acknowledgments.” > > Here is federal law concerning the swearing in of [Senators](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/21) and [Representatives](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/25). > > As noted, none of these apply to the Presidency. To my knowledge, Congress has never specified qualifications to administer the Presidential oath. I suspect, but don’t know, that they’ve felt that since the wording of the oath is specified in the Constitution, it would be inappropriate to add or subtract from it via ordinary statutory law. Oaths are taken by the individual, not administered to the individual. An oath is still an oath when it is administered by no one. If a certain oath must be witnessed by a certain person or group, that makes sense. Maybe that’s what the law is referring to - who is considered qualified to witness an oath on behalf of the country. In the case of a US president taking that oath under normal circumstances, it’s a public event with many witnesses, so choosing one witness as the official one is either superfluous, or insulting to the public (who are each one official witnesses since they did the electing), depending on how you look at it. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2018, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/22 "2018-08-11T23:10:22Z")
Inside of a president it’s too dark to swear. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/23 "2018-08-12T00:44:44Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > But the constitution does say the oath has to be taken, right? Yes, just as it says the president shall give Congress information on the state of the union, and refrain from collecting a paycheck from one of the states. That doesn’t mean there’s necessarily a _legal_ remedy if he fails to do those things. > [@DavidwithanR](#): > > It’s never come up and probably never will, but it would appear to me that if it’s in the constitution then there’s no such thing as an unsworn president - someone who hasn’t taken the oath isn’t a president of any kind, sworn or unsworn. It just says the president should take the oath before “enter[ing] on the Execution of his Office.” Executing the office is separate from holding it. I’ve even seen (purposefully pedantic) arguments that the oath doesn’t count if it’s taken at 11:59 (as often happens), because the Constitution says the _president_ shall take it, not the _president-elect_. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/24 "2018-08-12T03:23:50Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Yes, just as it says the president shall give Congress information on the state of the union, and refrain from collecting a paycheck from one of the states. That doesn’t mean there’s necessarily a _legal_ remedy if he fails to do those things. Impeachment > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > It just says the president should take the oath before “enter[ing] on the Execution of his Office.” Executing the office is separate from holding it. Not should but shall. In other words not a suggestion but a requirement. > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > It’s not clear to me that there’s even necessarily a mechanism for the president’s oath to be declared invalid. The Constitution does not explicitly say that an action taken by an unsworn president is invalid, so it might not be found to be a _legal_ question at all. > [@US Constitution](#): > > Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I’d say that it’s pretty clear the President cannot commit a valid Presidential act before taking the oath. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/25 "2018-08-12T03:40:08Z")
If you have a shrink ray, some rope, and a funnel, I think it’s more a question of who can’t than who can. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/26 "2018-08-12T04:28:22Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > If you have a shrink ray, some rope, and a funnel, I think it’s more a question of who can’t than who can. 😕 I have no idea what this even begins to mean or is a reference to… I also dread finding out that I actually do. Please clarify. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/27 "2018-08-12T04:35:00Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Yes, just as it says the president shall give Congress information on the state of the union, and refrain from collecting a paycheck from one of the states. That doesn’t mean there’s necessarily a _legal_ remedy if he fails to do those things. If you’re saying that your country’s constitution is not legally binding in your country, then… umm… good luck, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Ponderoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponderoid/32/19221_2.png) [@Ponderoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponderoid)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/28 "2018-08-12T04:57:52Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Please clarify. 🙂 See post #22 ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/29 "2018-08-12T05:16:46Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > It just says the president should take the oath before “enter[ing] on the Execution of his Office.” Executing the office is separate from holding it. Technically, I suppose… but being president and being unable to take any action on anything (just because you haven’t publicly said you’ll do your best) might get a bit frustrating. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/30 "2018-08-12T05:24:07Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Impeachment Yes, that’s what I’m getting at. Political remedies like impeachment, refusal to take up the president’s nominations, refusal to deal with the president legislatively, scandalmongering, etc. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Not should but shall. In other words not a suggestion but a requirement. I agree, I’m just saying that the requirement might stand on its own rather than having some cascading legal effect that could result in the invalidation of the presidency. Parents are required to register births, but that doesn’t make a baby an un-person if it doesn’t have a birth certificate. Like, if a president who hadn’t taken the oath purported to sign a bill passed by Congress (let’s say Congress adjourns nine days later so it wouldn’t have taken effect automatically), is the president’s lack of an oath a defense to having violated that law? It couldn’t hurt to try but I don’t think it’s clear that it would work. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/31 "2018-08-12T15:34:47Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > Oaths are taken by the individual, not administered to the individual. No. Oaths are both taken and administered. That’s why the laws I linked to above go to great lengths to empower certain individuals to _administer_ oaths. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/32 "2018-08-12T16:01:58Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > No. Oaths are both taken and administered. That’s why the laws I linked to above go to great lengths to empower certain individuals to _administer_ oaths. I suppose there’s some value in ensuring that the oath taken was the proper one. Whatever ritualistic aspects of oath taking that once existed the important part left over is a verbal contract between the oath taker and the state and getting the wording right could be important in some narrow circumstances. However, I do not see any point in having an official administrator of oaths in a time when an oath can simply be recited in front of witnesses, and that recitation can be recorded, or the oath taken by a witnessed signing of a document. Actually a witnessed signature on a document would be much better proof that the proper oath was taken than any oral version. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/33 "2018-08-12T18:37:42Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I suppose there’s some value in ensuring that the oath taken was the proper one. Whatever ritualistic aspects of oath taking that once existed the important part left over is a verbal contract between the oath taker and the state and getting the wording right could be important in some narrow circumstances. > > However, I do not see any point in having an official administrator of oaths in a time when an oath can simply be recited in front of witnesses, and that recitation can be recorded, or the oath taken by a witnessed signing of a document. Actually a witnessed signature on a document would be much better proof that the proper oath was taken than any oral version. Since this is GQ, do you have any actual legal evidence to back this up? Otherwise, whether you see a point or not is pretty irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394/34 "2018-08-12T18:46:04Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > However, I do not see any point in having an official administrator of oaths in a time when an oath can simply be recited in front of witnesses, and that recitation can be recorded, or the oath taken by a witnessed signing of a document. Actually a witnessed signature on a document would be much better proof that the proper oath was taken than any oral version. I suppose the designation of authorized oath-takers was mostly a matter of simplifying things by having a person who’d be _responsible as a matter of duty_ before the authorities to be the stand-in for the Public Trust. In fact, most of the times I’ve had to take an oath for the purposes of public employment or duty it only involved a countersigned document. But I can only imagine the twitstorm if someone were sworn in for high public office that way, given that we are in a world where flipping one phrase’s wording with NO effect on the meaning of the sentence in the spoken oath at the public ceremony results in a repeat it later in the afternoon so people will shut up. The accusations of how that page and those signatures were faked and that the parties never even looked at what they were signing would be flying within minutes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-swear-in-a-us-president/819394.md?page=1)